APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant was indicted on three counts of first degree murder, and a jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. On appeal, this Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial because of the inappropriate admission of certain evidence and the prosecutor’s reliance on the inadmissable evidence during closing argument. State v. Frankie E. Casteel, No. E1999-00076- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 329538 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, April 5), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2001). At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury again found Defendant guilty of three counts of first degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the Hamilton County District Attorney’s Office should have been disqualified from prosecuting Defendant in this case; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (3) the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony; and (4) the trial court erred in admitting Defendant’s adopted admission through Marie Hill’s testimony. Following a thorough review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Bernie R. McGill, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. The post-conviction court concluded that it was without jurisdiction to review McGill's claims because the petition was filed outside the one-year limitation period. After review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The post-conviction court ordered a new trial relating to the petitioner’s felony murder conviction for which he was sentenced to life without parole, but denied him relief regarding his especially aggravated robbery conviction. The state appeals, contending the post-conviction court erred in granting relief based upon the trial court’s failure to charge second degree murder as a lesser-included offense of felony murder. The petitioner cross-appeals, asserting: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial level; (2) he is entitled to relief based upon the results of DNA testing; (3) the trial court erred in failing to charge intoxication as a defense; (4) the trial court erred in admitting victim impact evidence and in failing to properly instruct the jury during the penalty phase; and (5) the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Freeman Antoine Hale, appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Criminal Court revoking his community corrections sentences. Hale pled guilty to aggravated burglary and possession of cocaine with intent to sell and received an effective three-year sentence. As a result of these convictions, he was placed on intensive probation but, following violations of release, he was resentenced to community corrections. Hale then proceeded to violate his community corrections agreement, and the trial court ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Hale asserts that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the violations occurred. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Defendant, Franklin D. Brooks, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for burglary, theft, and vandalism. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced as a Range II offender to serve seven years on community corrections. As a condition of his sentence, Defendant was ordered to complete the Lifelines program while incarcerated. Defendant appeals his sentence. We conclude that the trial court erred by sentencing Defendant to serve more than one year of his sentence of split confinement in continuous confinement. We also conclude that Defendant is entitled to receive credit for time served in confinement. Accordingly, we remand this case for entry of an Amended Judgment to allow credit for time served in confinement, and we modify the sentence, and order that Defendant be released from custody and placed on community corrections to serve the remainder of his sentence.

The Petitioner, Arzolia Charles Goines, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The Petitioner, Michael Addison, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Sanford and Sons Bail Bonds, Inc., the appellant, appeals from the trial court’s denial of relief from
final forfeiture of its bond. At the hearing set to determine whether final forfeiture of the bond
should occur, the appellant did not appear and the trial court entered a judgment against the appellant declaring final forfeiture. The appellant then sought relief from the final forfeiture judgment, pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11- 201(b), and sought a stay of execution of the judgment. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed in this matter, we are without jurisdiction to determine whether the trial court erred in entering a final forfeiture against the appellant based upon its claim under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-201(b). We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a stay of execution or relief under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

The defendant, Novella Beard, appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence and alleged error concerning jurors’ questions of witnesses. We find no reversible error and affirm the conviction.

The Appellant, Tony Harp, was convicted in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court of one count of theft of property valued between $ 1,000 and $ 10,000, a class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a thirty-month community corrections sentence, with service of ninety days in the county jail. On appeal, Harp asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction and (2) the trial court erred in denying him full probation. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction and resulting sentence.

While initially indicted on three counts of attempted first degree murder, the defendant, John Mark Burns, was convicted on three counts of attempted second degree murder. The trial court imposed sentences of eleven years for each offense, all of which are to be served concurrently. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, he argues that the trial court erred in several of its instructions to the jury, and he contends that the sentence is excessive. Because the trial court erred in its application of certain enhancement factors, the defendant’s sentences are modified to three concurrent nine-year terms. Otherwise, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Defendant, Sean Anthony, was tried and convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery. On appeal he contends that: (1) the trial court improperly refused to accept his guilty plea; (2) the trial court should have suppressed his statement to police; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Dorian Soriano Bautista, appeals from the Bedford County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for theft over one thousand dollars, a Class D felony. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys failed to explain to him the adverse consequences that his guilty plea and conviction could have on his resident alien status, which led to his deportation. We affirm the trial court.

The appellant, Tony O. Johnson, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of second degree murder. Following the appellant’s conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the trial court’s application of certain enhancement factors. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals her resentencing following the revocation of her eight-year community corrections sentence for vehicular homicide, a Class B felony, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering her to serve twelve years in the Department of Correction, following her arrest for DUI. Based on the subsequent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we remand this matter to the trial court for reconsideration in light of its holding.

The defendant pled guilty in 2000 to vehicular homicide and the judgment ordered, in addition to setting the sentence at five years and the restitution amount, that he forfeit his driver's license for five years. Following his release from incarceration, he petitioned the trial court to reduce the period of suspension of his license to three years. The trial court granted this petition, and the State appealed, arguing that the court was without authority to alter the license revocation period. Upon our review, we find that the judgment, which was the basis for the defendant's request that the trial court reduce the suspension period to three years and the State's appeal of the court order doing so, had been superseded by an amended judgment entered several days after the first which corrected the listing of the statute for the defendant's conviction offense but omitted setting a period of suspension of his driver's license. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court reducing the suspension period to three years and remand for entry of a second corrected judgment, this one to set a period for the license revocation.

Seanise Shaw, the petitioner, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for
post-conviction relief. The lower court found her allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel
unsupported by the evidence and denied relief. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable ground for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Raymond K. McCrary, pled guilty to one count of manufacture of a Schedule VI controlled substance, marijuana, a Class E felony, and one count of possession for resale of a Schedule VI controlled substance, marijuana, also a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to one year in the Department of Correction on each count to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying alternative sentencing. Based on our review, we affirm the length of the sentence but modify it to reflect a period of incarceration of sixty days, with the remainder to be served on probation with appropriate conditions to be established by the trial court.

The defendant, Robin McNeal Vanhoose, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentence. The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, to affirm the dismissal by the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon reviewing the record, the defendant’s brief, and the State’s motion and brief, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable ground for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Raymond Mitchell, was convicted in 1996 of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. He pled nolo contendere to a third rape charge, which was reduced to sexual battery. He received a total effective sentence of fifteen years as a Range I, standard offender, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequently, he filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, alleging he was entitled to earn sentence reduction credits and challenging his classification as a "multiple rapist." The trial court dismissed the petition and he appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the Department of Correction ("DOC") did not err by classifying the petitioner as a multiple rapist and determining he was not eligible for sentence reduction credits. The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, improper jury instructions, double jeopardy violations, and again challenging the sentence enforcement by the DOC. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and this appeal followed. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court denying the petition but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 2 and 3 to reflect that the petitioner is a "multiple rapist," and his sentences are to be served as such.

I agree with the majority opinion that application of enhancement factor (14) violates the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. _____, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). However, I would remand for a new sentencing hearing for the trial court to use the only applicable enhancement factor, the Defendant’s prior convictions. While the trial court did state that the prior convictions “should be considered very strongly as far as enhancement,” the trial court then immediately stated that Defendant had to be on probation at the time of the offense which is the subject of this appeal, and the trial court applied that enhancement factor also.

The Petitioner, Victor D. McMiller, Sr., appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant, Christopher Kirkendall, indicted for one count of attempted first degree murder and two counts of aggravated robbery, was convicted of facilitation of attempted second degree murder and two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery, all Class C felonies. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years for facilitation of attempted second degree murder and, after merging the robbery convictions, imposed a five-year sentence for one count of facilitation of aggravated robbery.  The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to a previously imposed twelve-year sentence for an unrelated offense. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the identity evidence and argues that the sentences should be concurrently served. Since the filing of the briefs, the defendant has also asked to consider the impact of the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____ , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), as to the lengths of the sentences. The judgments are affirmed as modified.